Each one of these are legends in my opinion and should not have been overlooked in your poll.

It's mr. last time i checked. I put the guitarists that came to my mind at the time and you are correct. i am not a rush fan and am pretty unfamiliar with tool and Rage against the machine. But i am open minded and will check these groups out if you say they are good. Rush was kind of the tail end of "prog" and i just wasn't interested. I'll check them out.

I just made this poll out of boredom and to see what people would come up with. I'm hearing negative comments towards John mclaughlin. i think that is unfair because he is one of the few guitarists that put some thought into what he plays. i mean he's coming from a mixture of blues and bebop fused with eastern modalities and flamenco in an original way. he can play as many fucking notes as he wants. The more the better he's awesome.

I think Steve vai is very talented potentially but not really a favorite of mine. he definitely has garnered alot of respect and fans so more power to him. It's just not my bag. Don't really know much about dweezil but thought his frank interprtations are very good. I do want to look into kenneally's music.

I prefer free bop like Joe Morris. also one of my all time favorites Mr. James "Blood" Ulmer. On top of the others mentioned in this thread some other guitarists i think are praise worthy are Bruce arnold, Mick goodrick, crombie, leonid soybelman.

I think both of them are fairly over-rated. Frusciante is second only to Hendrix in terms of spawning many rockers who flat out imitate him. as for Rodriguez, he has a high propensity for self-indulgent noodling, plus, in his bands, he claims most of the soloing space to himself.

_________________There are groups that tend to dazzle a drug-stupefied audience into submission

I think both of them are fairly over-rated. Frusciante is second only to Hendrix in terms of spawning many rockers who flat out imitate him. as for Rodriguez, he has a high propensity for self-indulgent noodling, plus, in his bands, he claims most of the soloing space to himself.

I could'nt catagorize Hendrix with any of these other guys. If it were'nt for Jimi, most of them would'nt exist.

I don't get the Hendrix bashing either. I suppose say.. Charlie Parker is overrated as well, considering his innovations were copied by almost every jazz musician that came after him.

True saxophonists, along with true guitarists, are the ones who can inspire others to try out really interesting things, as opposed to those who are maybe not technically the best kind of players, yet who can sell their charisma and guitar/sax heroics real well and inspire others to be just like him. I'd sooner inspire a few kids to think for themselves than brainwash millions into following me blindly.

_________________There are groups that tend to dazzle a drug-stupefied audience into submission

I don't get the Hendrix bashing either. I suppose say.. Charlie Parker is overrated as well, considering his innovations were copied by almost every jazz musician that came after him.

True saxophonists, along with true guitarists, are the ones who can inspire others to try out really interesting things, as opposed to those who are maybe not technically the best kind of players, yet who can sell their charisma and guitar/sax heroics real well and inspire others to be just like him. I'd sooner inspire a few kids to think for themselves than brainwash millions into following me blindly.

I would certainly encourage musicians to find their own voice as opposed to following the status quo. But even the most scholarly musicians borrow from the least scholarly. Jazz musicians ( not limited to saxophonists and guitarists) have borrowed ideas from delta blues and field musicians (who had no formal training) since the late 19th century (and still do). Hendrix, Charlie Christain, Charlie Parker ect. have all borrowed (or stolen) ideas from their predecessors. I don't know if I would define true musicianship based on the merits of a players technical abilities or formal training.

I would certainly encourage musicians to find their own voice as opposed to following the status quo. But even the most scholarly musicians borrow from the least scholarly. Jazz musicians ( not limited to saxophonists and guitarists) have borrowed ideas from delta blues and field musicians (who had no formal training) since the late 19th century (and still do). Hendrix, Charlie Christain, Charlie Parker ect. have all borrowed (or stolen) ideas from their predecessors. I don't know if I would define true musicianship based on the merits of a players technical abilities or formal training.

I agree, regarding the fact that it's highly unlikely to get anywhere in terms of mastering the instrument (or composition/songwriting as well) without relying on some external influences or role models in order of learning. But the true mark of a truly inventive musician is not necessarily inventing something completely unheard, as only few have that privilege and they're becoming increasingly scarcer. Rather, as a musician develops, one will learn to treat one's influences more subtly, that is, rather than wanting to be just like these influences, the musician is able to learn from both the accomplishments as well as the shortcomings of one's influences and mix some totally different ideas in. There are also a couple of interesting strategies that can fasten your capability of finding your own instrumental voice: you can synthesize loads of disparate and eclectic influences in your playing. FZ did that. Fred Frith the same way (he fused folk, free-jazz, blues, classicism et al in his guitar playing). Or the other way is to master your style after someone who plays an entirely different instrument! Phil Manzanera used to learn playing the organ solos by Mike Ratledge from the Soft Machine.

_________________There are groups that tend to dazzle a drug-stupefied audience into submission

I would certainly encourage musicians to find their own voice as opposed to following the status quo. But even the most scholarly musicians borrow from the least scholarly. Jazz musicians ( not limited to saxophonists and guitarists) have borrowed ideas from delta blues and field musicians (who had no formal training) since the late 19th century (and still do). Hendrix, Charlie Christain, Charlie Parker ect. have all borrowed (or stolen) ideas from their predecessors. I don't know if I would define true musicianship based on the merits of a players technical abilities or formal training.

I agree, regarding the fact that it's highly unlikely to get anywhere in terms of mastering the instrument (or composition/songwriting as well) without relying on some external influences or role models in order of learning. But the true mark of a truly inventive musician is not necessarily inventing something completely unheard, as only few have that privilege and they're becoming increasingly scarcer. Rather, as a musician develops, one will learn to treat one's influences more subtly, that is, rather than wanting to be just like these influences, the musician is able to learn from both the accomplishments as well as the shortcomings of one's influences and mix some totally different ideas in. There are also a couple of interesting strategies that can fasten your capability of finding your own instrumental voice: you can synthesize loads of disparate and eclectic influences in your playing. FZ did that. Fred Frith the same way (he fused folk, free-jazz, blues, classicism et al in his guitar playing). Or the other way is to master your style after someone who plays an entirely different instrument! Phil Manzanera used to learn playing the organ solos by Mike Ratledge from the Soft Machine.

Your absolutely correct here and offer good examples of people who have diversified their influences. Thats what truly sets these people apart from their peers. A musical melting pot so-to-speak.

I have to agree. Judging musician's abilities reminds me of something we did when we were kids.

Ummm...compare dick sizes?

Well, this is a little different and, in fact, even stupider. It's like gymnastics rating or gunslinging. Call it, "art as a sport". Everybody has strongpoints and weaknesses but looking at it as, "Where is somebody on a scale of one--to--ten?", is irrelevant. (Yes, I'll 'fess up to clicking "A.H." but that's subjective preference and has nothing at all to do with ability.

There are also a couple of interesting strategies that can fasten your capability of finding your own instrumental voice: you can synthesize loads of disparate and eclectic influences in your playing. FZ did that. Fred Frith the same way

As did Hendrix, or at least in my book. It's hard to appreciate how innovative he must have sounded back in 1966, now that everything he played has become the standard vocabulary for pretty much every electric guitarist. But no-one was playing stuff like him back then, or at least not that I know of. Something like 'Third Stone From The Sun' really must have sounded like it came from Mars.

_________________"When you hear music, after it's over, it's gone in the air. You can never capture it again." -- Eric Dolphy

There are also a couple of interesting strategies that can fasten your capability of finding your own instrumental voice: you can synthesize loads of disparate and eclectic influences in your playing. FZ did that. Fred Frith the same way

As did Hendrix, or at least in my book. It's hard to appreciate how innovative he must have sounded back in 1966, now that everything he played has become the standard vocabulary for pretty much every electric guitarist. But no-one was playing stuff like him back then, or at least not that I know of. Something like 'Third Stone From The Sun' really must have sounded like it came from Mars.

I think both of them are fairly over-rated. Frusciante is second only to Hendrix in terms of spawning many rockers who flat out imitate him. as for Rodriguez, he has a high propensity for self-indulgent noodling, plus, in his bands, he claims most of the soloing space to himself.

I agree with Rodriguez, but he's an awesome chord and rythym player. I like listening to them a lot, and it sounds good to me, so I don't mind how many people imitate them, they're not him, as long as he doesn't start sucking I don't care.

_________________"Once you go black, you never go back."
--Thomas Jefferson

It seems most options on the poll are for "progessive" or Jazz type players, which I enjoy a lot (seen McLaughlin and DiMeola several times) but, even if it is not your first choice of music, SRV took R&B guitar as far as it could go. It was like the notes just flowed out of the man. He was amazing.

_________________The fun hasn't beginned yet, uh, later on apparently The Mothers are gonna hand out the bingo cards and everything, you know

It seems most options on the poll are for "progessive" or Jazz type players, which I enjoy a lot (seen McLaughlin and DiMeola several times) but, even if it is not your first choice of music, SRV took R&B guitar as far as it could go. It was like the notes just flowed out of the man. He was amazing.

SRV was great. Saw him in concert many times.

Robben Ford is another fantastic guitarist for a blues/jazz/fusion crossover.

Just saw a great acoustic player on PBS' Sierra Center Stage this past weekend named Tommy Emmanual. Anybody else heard of him?

Who is online

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum